Mumbai Court December 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Naya Panchayati Udasi Akhada Vs. Motilal Bansgopal Chhatrapuri and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom282; (1958)60BOMLR1154; ILR1959Bom727
1. This is judgment will also govern Second Appeal No. 627 of 1952.2. These appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the respondent No. 1 in this appeal who is the sole respondent in the other appeal, under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a declaration that a certain property which he had attached in execution of two decrees against the respondent No. 2 Narayandas belonged to him and not to the present appellant.3. The relevant facts are as follows: The property in question was originally owned by Sunderdas. After his death, his widow Radhabai took the respondent No. 2 in adoption. It is contended by the respondent No. 1 that by virtue of the adoption he succeeded to this property and has become the owner thereof. It would appear that Radhabai gifted this property to the appellant in the year 1941 by virtue of which the appellant is in possession of this property.4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the adoption was invalid because Narayandas as we...
Damodardas Khivraj Vs. Gourishankar Harbakas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom445; (1958)60BOMLR679; ILR1958Bom1035
1. This is a second appeal by the second defendant to a suit for the recovery of its. 3959 alleged to be due from him along with the other defendants to the suit, on account of the price of certain ghee sold to them. The plaintiff's case is briefly as follows : The shop of Damodardas Narayandas of Khamgaon was a joint Hindu family firm owned by its members, defendants Nos. 2 to 5. The defendant No. 5 purchased 50 tins of ghee from the plaintiff on 9-2-1949 at the rate of Rs. 4/9/0 per seer. The net weight of the ghee was 706 seers and it was worth Rs. 4134/3/0. In addition to this sum, other charges amounting to Rs. 84/12/0 were also payable by the defendants to him. The total amount which was due from the defendants to the plaintiff was, according to the plaintiff, Rs. 4218-15-0. Out of this amount, Rs. 218-15-0 were said to have been paid in cash by Narayandas on the date of purchase and a hundi for Rs. 500 was also given by him on that date. This hundi is said to have been dishonour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›